RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00667
		INDEX NUMBER:  145.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to show she was retired because of physical disability with a disability rating of 30% or 50%, rather than discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay with a compensable rating of 10%.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) was a mistrial due to the incompetence of the board members and the total disregard for her abilities to do her job in the Air Force.  Her disability rating was an injustice because her rating was based on muscular, postural and soft tissue problems.  She endured physical hardship while in a plaster cast and crutches.  The snow, plaster cast and crutches hampered her mobility and aggravated the trunk part of her body, her back and loss of muscle tone.  

In support of her appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of her email communications regarding her Air Force disability benefits and a copy of her Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision.  Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a former enlisted member of the Regular Air Force who, on 1 May 1986, was discharged in the grade of airman first class (E-3) with severance pay and a 10% disability rating.  At the time of her discharge she had served 2 years and 14 days of active military service.  She received three Airman Performance Reports closing 17 April 1985, 22 November 1985 and 22 March 1986, in which the overall ratings were 9, 8, 9, respectively.

Available rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) indicate the applicant received combined compensable ratings for her service connected conditions of 10% from 2 May 1986, 50% from 5 May 1988, 100% from 27 May 1988, and 50% from 1 July 1988.  

The remaining relevant medical facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's medical records, are contained in the letter prepared by the BCMR Medical Consultant which is located at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends the application be denied.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states the applicant underwent evaluation by the Disability Evaluation System for chronic shin splints that occurred whenever she was required to run or march. Despite treatment and profiles preventing participation in running and marching, the applicant’s pain continued to occur.  The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found the applicant unfit for continued military service due to her chronic shin splints (rated 10 percent) and recommended disability discharge with severance pay.  The BCMR Medical Consultant further states the applicant appealed for return to duty to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).  The FPEB upheld the findings and recommendation of the IPEB.  After noting the differences in the statutory criteria for disability rating decisions by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, it is the opinion of the BCMR Medical Consultant that the evidence of record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was properly evaluated and rated, and her separation for physical disability with a 10 percent rating was proper.  The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

On 31 August 2004, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant for review and comment.  As of the date, this office has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of this case.  However, evidence has not been provided that would suggest the actions taken to effect her discharge were improper or contrary to Air Force regulations.  The applicant points to the disability assessment and rating she received from the DVA to support her claim.  In this regard, we are constrained to note that by law, following findings of unfitness, it is an individual’s condition at the time of separation or final disposition that governs whether he or she is discharged or retired because of physical disability.  After separation, compensation based on increases or decreases in the severity of the former service member’s condition are the responsibility of the DVA.  Furthermore, the DVA rates service-connected conditions on the basis of social and industrial adaptability while the services base rating decisions on the degree of impairment for performance of duties.  We believe it is interesting to note that for approximately two years following her separation, the compensable rating awarded by the DVA was the same at that established at the time of her separation, which in our estimation, tends to support the Air Force assessment of her condition.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe that military medical authorities erroneously evaluated the severity of her unfitting condition vis-à-vis her ability to perform her duties, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number 04-00667:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Feb 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.

	Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 18 Aug 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Aug 04.